MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 April 2003    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083377

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that the rank and social security account number (SSAN) listed on his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the SSAN listed in Item 3 (Social Security Number) and the rank listed in Item 5 (Grade, Rate, or Rank) of his 17 April 1967 DD Form 214 are incorrect.  He claims that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 while stationed in Germany in 1966 or 1967.  He further states that the SSAN is incorrect and he provides a copy of his social security card in support of this claim.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 17 February 1965, he was inducted into the Army of the United States.  The primary identification number used at the time of his enlistment was the Army Service Number (SN).  His induction packet and the documents prepared upon his entry on active duty are all void of a SSAN, they include only a SN and in some cases a selective service number.  

There is also no SSAN entered in the Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) However, all the documents on file for the applicant that do contain an SSAN, list the SSAN that he now claims is incorrect.  This is also the SSAN that was recorded in his Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20), and other service records created during his tenure on active duty. 

The applicant’s DA Form 20 confirms in Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC), which he attained on 20 October 1965.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no orders or documents that indicate that he was ever recommended for or promoted to a higher rank while serving on active duty.  

On 17 April 1967, the applicant was released from active duty by reason of expiration of term of service.  At the time, he had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 1 day of active military service.  The DD Form 214 issued to him on the date he was separated lists the SSAN he now claims is incorrect in Item 3 (Social Security Number); and Item 5 (Grade, Rate of Rank) contains the entry PFC, which confirms he held this rank on that date.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged), which indicates that he verified that the information contained in the separation document was correct at the time it was issued.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the SSAN and rank entered in his 17 April 1967 DD Form 214 are incorrect.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  Although the applicant now claims that the SSAN contained in the copy of his social security card that he now provides is correct, and the one recorded in his DD Form 214 is incorrect, he fails to provide an official explanation from the Social Security Administration, or any other source, that explains the use of these duplicate SSANs.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The information contained therein should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created and under which the military service was performed.  

3.  The Board also notes the applicant’s contention that the rank listed in his separation document is incorrect, and his claim that he was promoted prior to separation.  However, it finds no evidence to support this claim.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was PFC.  In addition, his MPRJ contains no orders or other documents that suggest he was ever recommended for or promoted to a higher rank while on active duty.  

4.  Finally, the evidence of record shows that the applicant authenticated the 
DD Form 214 issued to him on 17 April 1967 with his signature in Item 32.  This indicates that he verified that the information contained in the separation document, to include the SSAN and rank, was correct at the time it was issued.  Lacking convincing independent evidence to the contrary, the Board concludes that the applicant’s 17 April 1967 DD Form 214 was correct at the time it was issued and there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for changing it at this time. 

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. 

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___rtd __  __ym____  __jhl____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083377	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1967/04/17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.